I just got through reading the thread "Test Videos" on PBNation. I'm assuming that's the thread this is all happening in. It seems to me that Jack honestly believes that when some people watch his initial video, and shot his marker/bolt system out in the open, that the testimonials coming from that should be regarded as legitimate evidence.

I sort of get a bad taste from his objections to the videos not showing the actual shooting, and the boasting of his video despite his video not showing or documenting the velocities or consistent positioning of the marker. True, your videos are really just a visual to placate anyone who doesn't want to read the charted results, but no one is even really talking about the charts.

The attacks are strictly on the videos, even though bryce and CrazyLittle are insisting that the charts contain all of the data from the tests. It's a slew of post-hoc rationalizations from Jack as to why the tests didn't show results consistent with his. I'm still leaning towards the notion that any air creating a backspin on a ball would be diminished greatly (if not entirely) when the ball travels down the barrel, either due to the seal from an underbore or the rolling through an overbore.

Cockerpunk if you beleive in your data so much then y r u getting all defensive and mad about it... you kno its true. But i kinda have to agree with some of the nay sayers becuz there is no actual footage of you even shooting the gun. Even if it is just a couple paintballs over the chrono.

Y dont you just do an over the side view of the gun in that gun vice shooting at the target at 10bps and show the bolt and stuff. You say theres always going to be disbeleivers but if u do that and show wat the gun is chronoed at there arent going to be very much

You need a clear breech cam like Eclipse has. So you can see the ball spinning backwards in the breech, which you won't. There is no way a bolt can cause spin when the ball has to move through the entire length of the barrel afterwards. The expanding air isn't going to just be on the bottom of the ball.
I'm not one to agree with CP or Punkworks in general, but I don't think they lie about their tests. If they say they did something they did it. If I don't agree I'll try it myself. It's not like they claimed the cure for cancer, it's paintball everything is a gimmick.

Cockerpunk, Bryce, I've found the results from all of your tests useful, none of the tests you have performed have contradicted my personal experiences, I look forward to each test you do (even if it has little direct value or interest to me, like say this one), so thanks for taking the time and doing this test and all the others you have done (I'd donate but the whole work/economy thing is making that tough). Again thanks.

i just read like the few pages of mindless argueing on the PBN forums....
Bryce i gotta give it to ya, you have the patience of well... You ahve Great patience, Even when the guy was personally attacking you.
Isnt it evident that the system wont work? I mean, for it to really work, the ball and bolt face must have a perfect seal. Even a small Mil gap would allow the air to expand (even at 80 psi) and push the ball out evenly...

Does anyone know how to calculate how much backspin needs to be induced on a ball to begin to affect it's trajectory? There was an old page I saw one time about paintball physics that had a trajectory calculator on it...can't find it now tho.

I goldwaved the Alien video, and I can detect no signifigant increase in velocity via the gun report/ball impact. Both bolts have about 0.65 secs between @ 100'.
To get the rise in shots shown in their vid via the magnus effect would require about 7500 rpm (125 rotations/sec). Clearly, that doesn't show up in the high speed video.

Imo, he altered the marker elevation (intentionally or not) when changing out bolts. He does have something to prove, doesn't he.

knowing that the frame rate on the camera was 1200 frames per second and knowing what intervals the paintball is marked at, you can actually make a pretty reasonable estimate of the true RPM and RPS of the ball. comparing that to the calculations, you can actually see if there is any major deviation is shot pattern.

i'd also like to keep this thread clean of any references to jack rices character. in his forum he can say whatever he wants, and he has said some pretty terrible things. however, this is punkworks, not a pissing contest. we will keep the topic to science and leave the personalities out of it. if his best defense is "they simply lied" well then i consider that a pretty good test.

thank you.

Edited by cockerpunk, 05 July 2009 - 11:21 AM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

Saying "I am not satisfied with these results, I want to see more," is just snobbish. Whether your make a claim about a product, or disagree with someone's testing, take the responsibility and contribute.

no, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they've proved they don't deserve it - suggesting that we can improve our tests is helpful - we're always looking for ways to be better.

i just read like the few pages of mindless argueing on the PBN forums....Bryce i gotta give it to ya, you have the patience of well... You ahve Great patience, Even when the guy was personally attacking you.Isnt it evident that the system wont work? I mean, for it to really work, the ball and bolt face must have a perfect seal. Even a small Mil gap would allow the air to expand (even at 80 psi) and push the ball out evenly...

Saying "I am not satisfied with these results, I want to see more," is just snobbish. Whether your make a claim about a product, or disagree with someone's testing, take the responsibility and contribute.

no, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they've proved they don't deserve it - suggesting that we can improve our tests is helpful - we're always looking for ways to be better.

Didn't read the entire PBN thread, as it got pretty aggravating pretty fast and I didn't want to hurt myself from face palming too hard. But when I was busy typing up my rant about the ridiculous complaints they had over the validity of the testing done, I thought of something.

It would be interesting to see the test done with as short a barrel as possible. Ideally something that just covered the threads so the paint didn't break, a barrel back should suffice. If the ball doesn't have any spin in that test, then the bolt just plain doesn't make the balls spin. If it does spin, then that means something happens that removes it. Maybe the pressure around the ball stabilizes it as it passes through the barrel, or friction from contact with the inside of the barrel removes any spin imparted by the sweep bolt.

Although, even if it does spin, if the spin just gets removed I don't see how the bolt could possible be useful. I'm mostly just curious if you can actually spin a paintball with just air flow.

Though I don't know exactly why you guys do all this testing that will possibly get you angry looks, I rather like that you do it. You really do seem unbiased to me and I appreciate that. There is no way to remove all variables from tests such as these or prove to everyone in the sport that you are 100% correct without walking on water.

I have a few questions for you though, forgive me if they were already brought up. Do you think testing outdoors with a headwind may explain the extra lift Jack may have experienced? Do you think if you just mounted the marker and did what was done in the Alien Sweep Bolt Demo video you would have a different outcome? Without quantitative analysis that is.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think bolt design can affect anything other than gentleness on paint and air efficiency. From all my years in the venturi arguments, all I have found from personal experience is that a bolt with low restriction is always better than one with high restriction. But that is just me and if I am ever proven wrong, well...I roll with it. I don't have marketing involved.

It would be interesting to see the test done with as short a barrel as possible. Ideally something that just covered the threads so the paint didn't break, a barrel back should suffice. If the ball doesn't have any spin in that test, then the bolt just plain doesn't make the balls spin. If it does spin, then that means something happens that removes it. Maybe the pressure around the ball stabilizes it as it passes through the barrel, or friction from contact with the inside of the barrel removes any spin imparted by the sweep bolt.

when we shot the cooper-t backspin bolt a while ago we shot all the way down to a 696 freak - w/o the front attached. we didn't have the camera - but the trajectory was unaffected.

There is no way to remove all variables from tests such as these or prove to everyone in the sport that you are 100% correct without walking on water.

I have a few questions for you though, forgive me if they were already brought up. Do you think testing outdoors with a headwind may explain the extra lift Jack may have experienced? Do you think if you just mounted the marker and did what was done in the Alien Sweep Bolt Demo video you would have a different outcome? Without quantitative analysis that is.

we don't have the walking-on-water equipment.... yet....

I don't know what the explanation is to Jack's video. I'm unwilling to say that he faked it at this point - I have no reason to think he did.

I'm confident that our test was sound. I think that anyone who does any well designed, quantified test will get the same results that we got.

when we shot the cooper-t backspin bolt a while ago we shot all the way down to a 696 freak - w/o the front attached. we didn't have the camera - but the trajectory was unaffected.

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. I was kind of hoping against hope that the sweep bolt would actually work. Even if it didn't make the balls go further, if it simply added a small amount of spin that would make the paint more resistant to wind I would have been content. I don't understand how Alien was able to get the results that they claim to have been getting, and I'm out of theories as to how it could have been possible.

As for the debate over the validity of your guys' test results; I honestly don't understand how anyone could take the biased word of someone trying to sell them something over the unbiased scientific data of two people actually testing a product's claims.

so if I'm understanding this correctly, the design of the bolt wast to cut off part of the air flow so it hits one side of the ball first thus inducing spin? (I gleaned a bit, so you must pardon me if I missed anything)

that seems really... unlikely, even without testing. We all know that it takes a ridiculous amount of spin to get a ball to adjust flight, and it seems entirely impractical to try and achieve that through the air flow... then again, its an interesting attempt at least.

I'm not too sure why Alien would get really upset over this, however. By the looks of it, this doesn't really look like its much of an investment on the part of alien, just a small modification of the bolt. hardly revolutionary, or particularly expensive. Would have been great if it had worked, but like a lot of paintball gimmicks (and there are oh so many) its really just bells and whistles. It seems strange to me that someone at alien really thought this would work, as even rudimentary guessings through physics points to no, and thus takes serious offense to Punkworks' testing, but who knows?

it would be nice if the industry in general could just step away from trying to design the next huge breakthrough in super-awesome paintball technology and focus more on core improvements of their markers, but I guess this is the economic game of the paintball industry.

Many companies BS on products. Nothing new there. If you've been around long enough you can figure out what works and what doesn't.

Stand your ground....I have and companies do change their practices....just takes time...Just look into my sig....

Only thing I can say is get a time/date media stamping device and hook it up to all cameras and no matter what editing you do from any camera they will show the time and date...But then the nay sayers will still complain.

People keep saying "do the test yourself". Well, not everyone who doesn't believe is apparently rich like you and can't just up and go test a 600$ gun whenever they feel like it.

We're certainly not rich. Gordon is in college - I just bought a house. That means we're both technically broke all the time.

Sure, you may not be able to replicate every test we do - but the only response we can give to those that refuse to admit that our tests are valid and that our data is good is - "try it yourself".

There are those that will refuse to consider that - but take it for what it is, confidence in our testing procedures and methods. We fully expect that people who replicate and attempt our tests again will get similar results.

yeah use different paint but if u get that paint for free paint it black cuz it must even be a little hard for u to

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

That was one barrel - we did 23 barrels in that test. The sample was about 5 minutes long. That means that to show you the whole test we would have had to do about two hours of that - edited down. The test took more like 5 hours to complete with cleanup, etc.

If you doubt out data a three camera shoot of the whole test wouldn't matter. The important part of what we do is in the numbers - not the video of us collecting those numbers.

That was one barrel - we did 23 barrels in that test. The sample was about 5 minutes long. That means that to show you the whole test we would have had to do about two hours of that - edited down. The test took more like 5 hours to complete with cleanup, etc.

If you doubt out data a three camera shoot of the whole test wouldn't matter. The important part of what we do is in the numbers - not the video of us collecting those numbers.

that's why.

no need for all that. set it up. put the cam behind the gun. shoot the gun. done. take 10-20 shots like you did with the high speed. and just put it in a video. ya dont need 3 cams. just 2 min of extra footage.

no need for all that. set it up. put the cam behind the gun. shoot the gun. done. take 10-20 shots like you did with the high speed. and just put it in a video. ya dont need 3 cams. just 2 min of extra footage.

For what? So you know they actually shot the gun and didn't pull the data out of their asses?

I'll tell you what. I was in thermal chamber, chemical, force, and sound testing for 2 years. Testing vehicle components in some of those categories with several different test samples took me weeks. Just the setup for each test was a chore. Not to mention all the brain farting I did with Excel and the wishy-washy engineers I worked with. If I recorded just one set of tests you would be sitting and watching the same thing, over and over again, for hours. I would rather gouge out my eyes with a spork and pour salt on my brain.

I'm not going back and doing 6 hours of video editing to show an abbreviation of every test, nor did my employer doubt my data unless they had proof that my data could be skewed. Hell, I don't even know these guys or agree with how they do everything or their theories, but I sure as hell have a hard time finding fault with their tests.

If people want to slam Punkworks bring the testing and the data analysis, since you are the ones who need to prove the world is still flat. If you make a product with an untested claim, shame on you. If you have proof that your product does what it claims, then shut-up and put-up. I don't give a rats ass what you have to say about the character of these two guys, they have actual testing data and the best anyone can come up with to counter their work is lofty claims and video trickery. Not good enough.

I'll tell you what. I was in thermal chamber, chemical, force, and sound testing for 2 years. Testing vehicle components in some of those categories with several different test samples took me weeks. Just the setup for each test was a chore. Not to mention all the brain farting I did with Excel and the wishy-washy engineers I worked with. If I recorded just one set of tests you would be sitting and watching the same thing, over and over again, for hours. I would rather gouge out my eyes with a spork and pour salt on my brain.

I'm not going back and doing 6 hours of video editing to show an abbreviation of every test, nor did my employer doubt my data unless they had proof that my data could be skewed. Hell, I don't even know these guys or agree with how they do everything or their theories, but I sure as hell have a hard time finding fault with their tests.

If people want to slam Punkworks bring the testing and the data analysis, since you are the ones who need to prove the world is still flat. If you make a product with an untested claim, shame on you. If you have proof that your product does what it claims, then shut-up and put-up. I don't give a rats ass what you have to say about the character of these two guys, they have actual testing data and the best anyone can come up with to counter their work is lofty claims and video trickery. Not good enough.

I agree, I didn't have the kind of burden of proof these people require when working in a genetics lab... why would I require such a stringent burden of proof here? It's just knitpicking... repeatability is the hallmark of science, not video proof.

That was one barrel - we did 23 barrels in that test. The sample was about 5 minutes long. That means that to show you the whole test we would have had to do about two hours of that - edited down. The test took more like 5 hours to complete with cleanup, etc.

If you doubt out data a three camera shoot of the whole test wouldn't matter. The important part of what we do is in the numbers - not the video of us collecting those numbers.

that's why.

no need for all that. set it up. put the cam behind the gun. shoot the gun. done. take 10-20 shots like you did with the high speed. and just put it in a video. ya dont need 3 cams. just 2 min of extra footage.

that "two minutes" ends up taking us about ... an hour to do. two barrels ... yeah thats at least 45 minutes of shooting and measuring.

this stuff is long and boring, we dont film a lot of it, and we dont post a lot of the stuff we do film becuase its not interesting and does not matter. it wont solve any problem, skeptics will still be able to yell fraud.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

The real reason this has popped up in this thread is that Jack Rice, in an attempt to defend his product over on PBN stated that he "wasn't even sure they shot my gun".

To anyone who questions this test - how do you feel about our other tests? Did we make up the numbers on the barrel break test? Did we skew the data on the barrel accuracy test? Did we imaging shooting over multiple chronographs and just put some numbers in there that looked right?

This test tickles some people the wrong way because it has a well designed test disproving something that a manufacturer claims, and in an attempt to continue to claim that - the manufacturer has started bad mouthing our methods.

We knew that some of our testing would piss off manufacturers - but not the ones that make good claims.

as you said - you don't have to agree with us to decide if our methods are good. That's one of the great hallmarks of testing ANYTHING. If you're open about your methods - then you can have a healthy debate about real issues. We've provided our methods (on video) - so if anyone sees anything in there that they think is unfair - they can address it directly.

If I recorded just one set of tests you would be sitting and watching the same thing, over and over again, for hours. I would rather gouge out my eyes with a spork and pour salt on my brain.

I'm not going back and doing 6 hours of video editing to show an abbreviation of every test, nor did my employer doubt my data unless they had proof that my data could be skewed. Hell, I don't even know these guys or agree with how they do everything or their theories, but I sure as hell have a hard time finding fault with their tests.

Until Jack or someone else does a test that has different results from cockerpunk and your findings....
The test stands on it's own....

I haven't questioned any results so far and you know I would if I seen or heard something that didn't sit right...
Can Jack or someone else make the paintballs spin consistantly shot after shot and reach the claims stated. Time will tell. But if theses results can only be completed in a lab and not in real world playing..It's no use to make the claim.
But it's a nice well built marker and that alone should bring sales...but in my opinion some of the claims is what has make some buyers bypass on purchasing...

I would make one suggestion that I do for our team sponsors when we are beta testing new or prototype products....Give them a heads up of what the results was and let them try to work with you or advise you on further testing before results are released. Then blood vessels won't pop out of their heads.....

I would make one suggestion that I do for our team sponsors when we are beta testing new or prototype products....Give them a heads up of what the results was and let them try to work with you or advise you on further testing before results are released. Then blood vessels won't pop out of their heads.....

If it was a prototype - or new product, then yeah, that's great. In this case the claim has been in their materials and on the web for 5 or so years. That's plenty of time for Jack to get some data together.

But yes, in this case, things were exacerbated by other circumstances. CockerPunk already had some previous history with Jack. Their conversations of a few months ago were what prompted this test. The internet is a great place for things to get out of hand. CockerPunk and Jack were both a bit on the edge - which, in turn led to fanboys on both sides taking things to really inappropriate places.

Neither Jack nor CockerPunk ever stepped over the line, but the overall tone of the conversation was poor because of the other participants. CockerPunk and I have both had extensive phone conversations with Jack - before, during and after the test. They were all very cordial and professional. The thing that we didn't and won't to - is hold results because they don't agree with what the manufacturer claims. Which, in effect, is what Jack wanted us to do. That would simply be dishonest work on our part - if we chose to withhold data because it was going to make someone mad. If we are confident in our procedures (which we are), open about our methods (which we are) and trust our results (we do), then the onus has to be on the other person to step forward and produce better data and a better test to refute ours.

Now, if someone asks us to help in product development, that's something else and we would have to make some decisions about whether we even want to get into that. The moment we are tied to a product competing in the market - our credibility when talking about competing products has gone down the shitter.

We want people to call us on stuff if they see a problem - that's how we'll improve our testing. Smart people like you should be watching us like hawks - jumping on us for any problems you see in what we do. The criticism leveled at us about not documenting our tests is simply a smoke screen for people who don't like our results. And that's fine. I'll continue to use the gear that we find to be best though our work - and in the end, I'll have an advantage over people who don't. Which is what this is all about.

I would make one suggestion that I do for our team sponsors when we are beta testing new or prototype products....Give them a heads up of what the results was and let them try to work with you or advise you on further testing before results are released. Then blood vessels won't pop out of their heads.....

If it was a prototype - or new product, then yeah, that's great. In this case the claim has been in their materials and on the web for 5 or so years. That's plenty of time for Jack to get some data together.

But yes, in this case, things were exacerbated by other circumstances. CockerPunk already had some previous history with Jack. Their conversations of a few months ago were what prompted this test. The internet is a great place for things to get out of hand. CockerPunk and Jack were both a bit on the edge - which, in turn led to fanboys on both sides taking things to really inappropriate places.

Neither Jack nor CockerPunk ever stepped over the line, but the overall tone of the conversation was poor because of the other participants. CockerPunk and I have both had extensive phone conversations with Jack - before, during and after the test. They were all very cordial and professional. The thing that we didn't and won't to - is hold results because they don't agree with what the manufacturer claims. Which, in effect, is what Jack wanted us to do. That would simply be dishonest work on our part - if we chose to withhold data because it was going to make someone mad. If we are confident in our procedures (which we are), open about our methods (which we are) and trust our results (we do), then the onus has to be on the other person to step forward and produce better data and a better test to refute ours.

Now, if someone asks us to help in product development, that's something else and we would have to make some decisions about whether we even want to get into that. The moment we are tied to a product competing in the market - our credibility when talking about competing products has gone down the shitter.

We want people to call us on stuff if they see a problem - that's how we'll improve our testing. Smart people like you should be watching us like hawks - jumping on us for any problems you see in what we do. The criticism leveled at us about not documenting our tests is simply a smoke screen for people who don't like our results. And that's fine. I'll continue to use the gear that we find to be best though our work - and in the end, I'll have an advantage over people who don't. Which is what this is all about.

I'm not saying withhold....you know me I try to look at both sides before leaping (I still get schooled sometimes) But if a result from a claim, this instance the Bolt didn't pan out...I would hit pause for a day or two and say Jack...the results of the bolt wasn't that good....Could the bolt be defective? Could you send another bolt or is there something in the set up we missed?.......I know this is playing armchair quaterback after the game is over....but just trying to smooth future tests...

Hell look at my sig....My main sponsor knows me well...too well...I have more documentation on them then anyone else....I was not a fanboy for years because of claims, stories and my opinion subpar materials...They listened to the players and they will be one if not the best companies for quality equipment and service to the player for years to come...Credit this to people like Sean who came aboard and are working for the better of paintball as well as the company...

to get a hold of the gun from jack, i had to put a substantial amount of money down. jack did not just trust me with a gun. then, i had to get my money back after i shipped the gun, and due to the level of distrust, that was interesting. i asked him explicitly what equipment, what paint, and what match to use to produce the best backspin effects and he told me "just go out and test it" so we did.

if jack took constructive cristism, well then maybe we would give it. if you have ever seen or spoken to jack rice, he is not the one to talk constructive cristism well. say what you want about jack, but he "knows" it works.

Edited by cockerpunk, 15 July 2009 - 11:30 AM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

i guess this one is a little weird because alien posted that vid of it working and showed everything while it was happening. so my brain just gets comfued about why there results were so much diffrent then yours. how did they cheat it to look better. or what did you guys do that made it turn out the way it did. im not pointing fingers. im just a confused. ill informed dishwasher

But if Microsoft came out with a test showing Windows Vista Running behind a Mac OSX.......... suggesting anything at all. Would that be a "scientific" test that you would trust.

I am totaaaally not saying that a company cant support its product with scientific test. But what I am saying is that I would question the validity of a scientific test of a product done by the product manafacturer WAAAY before I question the validity of a scientific test done by a NON-PROFIT party with no monetary intrest in the results of the test.

this stuff is long and boring, we dont film a lot of it, and we dont post a lot of the stuff we do film becuase its not interesting and does not matter. it wont solve any problem, skeptics will still be able to yell fraud.

Now, I'm not saying that some shady things went on, but maybe you could provide the entire raw footage to whoever wants it. Hook up on Groove, or IRC, or wherever and just slam dunk the huge ass video file on them and say: "Here! Watch it all! Eight fucking hours of balls hitting a grid pattern. Fuck yeah. Throw a goddam party and put this on!"

this stuff is long and boring, we dont film a lot of it, and we dont post a lot of the stuff we do film becuase its not interesting and does not matter. it wont solve any problem, skeptics will still be able to yell fraud.

Now, I'm not saying that some shady things went on, but maybe you could provide the entire raw footage to whoever wants it. Hook up on Groove, or IRC, or wherever and just slam dunk the huge ass video file on them and say: "Here! Watch it all! Eight fucking hours of balls hitting a grid pattern. Fuck yeah. Throw a goddam party and put this on!"

Who cares if it's boring? They want to watch then let them have it.

but that is just appeasing people who will never be pleased.

they will say the camera angle is wrong, or not high enough resolution, or that something is going on out of frame ... or a million other things.

there isn't much point in doing it becuase the poeple that arn't convinced by the data will find a way around no matter what. i dont want to get into that e-penis fight. if they dont like our test, do there own.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.